3 ms·

> The big news here are that there are journals in the Springer and Elsevier network that do not read the papers they publish whatsoever. This is only news to

> The big news here are that there are journals in the Springer and Elsevier network that do not read the papers they publish whatsoever. This is only news to people outside of academia. Anyone who has ever submitted a paper has gotten comments that can be attributed to the reviewer either being braindead or the reviewer not actually having read the paper. Since it's safe to assume said reviewer actually tied their shoes and put on their underwear the morning they reviewed the paper, it's also safe to assume it's the latter and not the former.

sigmoid10 3y ago
Exactly. Journals have sucked for a long time and practically all of academia just went along because publishing lots of stuff is the only way to have a career. The big news is that the rest of the public is starting to catch on how their tax dollars (that were supposed to go to research) end up in publisher's pockets even though they provide hardly any real value.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > Exactly. Journals have sucked for a long time It's funny people are raising their pitch-forks about the journals. I guess it's not widely known/understood that the journals aren't reviewing anything ever. So when I say reviewers I'm talking about PhDs in academia that do this work as "community service". So if peer review is fundamental to the scientific method then your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of the waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics not journal admins. > and practically all of academia just went along because there were no other options. Arxiv has been around for a long time now. Do you really think "the academy" couldn't have come to some consensus on how to allocate review duties for papers that are uploaded/stored/submitted there? The fact that they haven't strongly indicates that lazy ass peer review as orchestrated by the journals is to the benefit of the academy. Journal (and conference) reviewers are completely anonymous and there's absolutely no appeal process (rebuttal phase is BS). Does that sound like a democratic/fair/auditable/meritocracatic setup to you? Sounds like review by inscrutable tribunal to me. So if the process were open/community driven (ie democratic) then people wouldn't be able to hide from the shitty job they do.
  - sigmoid10 3y ago
    I didn't talk about the peer review process (which is indeed not done by the journal and on top of that usually unpaid). I was talking about the journal taking all that money purely for editing and publishing - a service that has become next to worthless in the age of the internet.
  - thaw13579 3y ago
    Beyond this, some reviewers use their position to take advantage of the process to suppress, slow, or preempt work that overlaps or disagrees with their own. The journal editors are supposed to police this kind of thing, but they are similarly providing a community service that is lacking quality.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      > slow, or preempt work that overlaps or disagrees with their own. No doubt - past two papers I've submitted I can basically deanonymize my reviewers based on the other papers/projects they insist my work is inferior to.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    > your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't peer review usually volunteer work? With the job of the (usually paid) editors to select reviewers with a track record of basic competence. > Do you really think "the academy" couldn't have come to some consensus on how to allocate review duties for papers that are uploaded/stored/submitted there? Actually, there are several proposals! One such system is https://openreview.net/about https://openreview.net/about – it's not the first I've seen, but it's the most recent. (I first learned about these things from a fictional proposal in a Pokémon fanwork: it's far from the realm of niche.) > Journal (and conference) reviewers are completely anonymous To reduce the incentives for nepotistic anti-scientific behaviour. The system's flawed, sure, but it works how it does for a reason.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
adolph 3y ago
> comments that can be attributed to the reviewer either being braindead or the reviewer not actually having read the paper. Since it's safe to assume said reviewer actually tied their shoes and put on their underwear the morning they reviewed the paper, it's also safe to assume it's the latter and not the former. Neural necrosis is rarely uniform across the entire organ. Adjust assumptions accordingly.
apricot 3y ago
I will not expand on the circumstances, but at one point during my career I did review a paper while naked.
naniwaduni 3y ago
> Since it's safe to assume said reviewer actually tied their shoes and put on their underwear the morning they reviewed the paper, I don't know, that's pretty questionable, especially since the plague.

sigmoid10 3y ago

Exactly. Journals have sucked for a long time and practically all of academia just went along because publishing lots of stuff is the only way to have a career. The big news is that the rest of the public is starting to catch on how their tax dollars (that were supposed to go to research) end up in publisher's pockets even though they provide hardly any real value.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> Exactly. Journals have sucked for a long time It's funny people are raising their pitch-forks about the journals. I guess it's not widely known/understood that the journals aren't reviewing anything ever. So when I say reviewers I'm talking about PhDs in academia that do this work as "community service". So if peer review is fundamental to the scientific method then your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of the waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics not journal admins. > and practically all of academia just went along because there were no other options. Arxiv has been around for a long time now. Do you really think "the academy" couldn't have come to some consensus on how to allocate review duties for papers that are uploaded/stored/submitted there? The fact that they haven't strongly indicates that lazy ass peer review as orchestrated by the journals is to the benefit of the academy. Journal (and conference) reviewers are completely anonymous and there's absolutely no appeal process (rebuttal phase is BS). Does that sound like a democratic/fair/auditable/meritocracatic setup to you? Sounds like review by inscrutable tribunal to me. So if the process were open/community driven (ie democratic) then people wouldn't be able to hide from the shitty job they do.
- sigmoid10 3y ago
  I didn't talk about the peer review process (which is indeed not done by the journal and on top of that usually unpaid). I was talking about the journal taking all that money purely for editing and publishing - a service that has become next to worthless in the age of the internet.
- thaw13579 3y ago
  Beyond this, some reviewers use their position to take advantage of the process to suppress, slow, or preempt work that overlaps or disagrees with their own. The journal editors are supposed to police this kind of thing, but they are similarly providing a community service that is lacking quality.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    > slow, or preempt work that overlaps or disagrees with their own. No doubt - past two papers I've submitted I can basically deanonymize my reviewers based on the other papers/projects they insist my work is inferior to.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't peer review usually volunteer work? With the job of the (usually paid) editors to select reviewers with a track record of basic competence. > Do you really think "the academy" couldn't have come to some consensus on how to allocate review duties for papers that are uploaded/stored/submitted there? Actually, there are several proposals! One such system is https://openreview.net/about https://openreview.net/about – it's not the first I've seen, but it's the most recent. (I first learned about these things from a fictional proposal in a Pokémon fanwork: it's far from the realm of niche.) > Journal (and conference) reviewers are completely anonymous To reduce the incentives for nepotistic anti-scientific behaviour. The system's flawed, sure, but it works how it does for a reason.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago

adolph 3y ago

> comments that can be attributed to the reviewer either being braindead or the reviewer not actually having read the paper. Since it's safe to assume said reviewer actually tied their shoes and put on their underwear the morning they reviewed the paper, it's also safe to assume it's the latter and not the former. Neural necrosis is rarely uniform across the entire organ. Adjust assumptions accordingly.

apricot 3y ago

I will not expand on the circumstances, but at one point during my career I did review a paper while naked.

naniwaduni 3y ago

> Since it's safe to assume said reviewer actually tied their shoes and put on their underwear the morning they reviewed the paper, I don't know, that's pretty questionable, especially since the plague.